The incoming Obama Administration - with visual aid!

[nittanyalum]

The Slate is providing a helpful chart that will be updated every time a new appointment is made: http://www.slate.com/id/2205007/

And hey, for a guy with an "experience" problem for many, I think 3 newbies out of 10 so far (and 2 more that only have 10 years in DC -- which isn't that many in DC-terms) is pretty good! And can I say that I love Janet Napolitano? I am happy with every person on this chart so far, I don't care whether they're considered "loyal" to Obama or to Clinton. They're all smart, accomplished and worthy of trust and confidence. *big, happy sigh*

[Senusret I]

That's good. I need visuals.

[LttleMsPrEp]

this is good..with all the names being thrown out there it was getting a little hard to remember who was who.

[DGTess]

Originally Posted by nittanyalum

The Slate is providing a helpful chart that will be updated every time a new appointment is made: http://www.slate.com/id/2205007/

And hey, for a guy with an "experience" problem for many, I think 3 newbies out of 10 so far (and 2 more that only have 10 years in DC -- which isn't that many in DC-terms) is pretty good! And can I say that I love Janet Napolitano? I am happy with every person on this chart so far, I don't care whether they're considered "loyal" to Obama or to Clinton. They're all smart, accomplished and worthy of trust and confidence. *big, happy sigh*

Isn't it 13 of 19 on the transition team, though, who are Clintonistas? This is change we can look back toward.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by nittanyalum

The Slate is providing a helpful chart that will be updated every time a new appointment is made: http://www.slate.com/id/2205007/

And hey, for a guy with an "experience" problem for many, I think 3 newbies out of 10 so far (and 2 more that only have 10 years in DC -- which isn't that many in DC-terms) is pretty good! And can I say that I love Janet Napolitano? I am happy with every person on this chart so far, I don't care whether they're considered "loyal" to Obama or to Clinton. They're all smart, accomplished and worthy of trust and confidence. *big, happy sigh*

I know that "change" is a non-starter because we're changing from a horrific era in American Executive history, but for a guy who promised a "new sort of politics" (based around a post-partisan agenda, a "common sense" approach, etc.) the heavy reliance on the Clinton-era staff, while overcoming experience issues (which, again, aren't very intelligent to start), still seems . . . awkward. I guess I'd almost feel better if it were just new people, since I find that the Clinton era is an overrated period anyway.

Not that I disagree with any particular selection, as all seem reasoned, but I don't think attacking the "experience" bent should even be an issue, and is completely reversed by the lack of a "new" era.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

I know that "change" is a non-starter because we're changing from a horrific era in American Executive history, but for a guy who promised a "new sort of politics" (based around a post-partisan agenda, a "common sense" approach, etc.) the heavy reliance on the Clinton-era staff, while overcoming experience issues (which, again, aren't very intelligent to start), still seems . . . awkward. I guess I'd almost feel better if it were just new people, since I find that the Clinton era is an overrated period anyway.

Not that I disagree with any particular selection, as all seem reasoned, but I don't think attacking the "experience" bent should even be an issue, and is completely reversed by the lack of a "new" era.

I had noted in another thread that one of the benefits of using such a vague term as "change" as the theme for a campaign is that you don't have to set a baseline. So, when people ask whether something is really a "change," Obama can shape the baseline; he can say that it's change from the Republican way of doing things, or change from the current administration, however he wants to frame it. It's not necessarily being disingenuous, just careful and creative with wording.

That said, I agree with RC in that it seems a bit odd to trumpet change, but then to rely on (admittedly capable and intelligent) Clinton appointees (also in the idea that the Clinton era was somewhat overrated, and has become more overrated in light of the Bush II presidency). These are people who, not too long ago, were part of the White House machinery, who no doubt have relationships with Clinton-era favored lobbyists, and who know how to work the system, so to speak.

But, as I said, it all depends on how you frame "change."

[RU OX Alum]

I think anyone expecting any real change was pretty naive to begin with, but I guess we'll see.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

I had noted in another thread that one of the benefits of using such a vague term as "change" as the theme for a campaign is that you don't have to set a baseline. So, when people ask whether something is really a "change," Obama can shape the baseline; he can say that it's change from the Republican way of doing things, or change from the current administration, however he wants to frame it. It's not necessarily being disingenuous, just careful and creative with wording.

That said, I agree with RC in that it seems a bit odd to trumpet change, but then to rely on (admittedly capable and intelligent) Clinton appointees (also in the idea that the Clinton era was somewhat overrated, and has become more overrated in light of the Bush II presidency). These are people who, not too long ago, were part of the White House machinery, who no doubt have relationships with Clinton-era favored lobbyists, and who know how to work the system, so to speak.

But, as I said, it all depends on how you frame "change."

Honestly, I don't care so much about "change" as the "new era of politics" rhetoric - change can eat my ass, because it's nonsense, but one of the actual hopeful messages from Obama was the potential for an era where politicians thought less of their own well-being ("Will this help me get re-elected?") and more about what actually makes sense. From that angle, hey, maybe all the old Clinton people are those people - but it would seem that Obama's harsh words about the Clintons during the campaign would speak otherwise, and it would be quite the coincidence.

It's more awkward than anything, I think, because I guess I expected something different. My favorite line about this election was that, in the face of two mediocre choices, you should generally pick the smarter one - I just hope that intelligence advantage isn't kowtowing to other interests.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Honestly, I don't care so much about "change" as the "new era of politics" rhetoric - change can eat my ass, because it's nonsense, but one of the actual hopeful messages from Obama was the potential for an era where politicians thought less of their own well-being ("Will this help me get re-elected?") and more about what actually makes sense.

Maybe it's the cynic in me, but I look at those two as the same thing; the rhetoric about "change," in my mind, equates to saying "I'm not going to do business as usual," so to speak.

I think the bigger issue will be if/when he announces that Hilary Clinton will be his choice for Secretary of State. She represents a previous incarnation of power for the Democrats, and putting her in such a visible and important position would be an interesting move.

Again, I don't necessarily have a problem with his doing this, but it certainly raises some questions about whether he's going in a truly new direction, or whether he's just taking a different take on the Clinton years.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

Maybe it's the cynic in me, but I look at those two as the same thing; the rhetoric about "change," in my mind, equates to saying "I'm not going to do business as usual," so to speak.

I think the bigger issue will be if/when he announces that Hilary Clinton will be his choice for Secretary of State. She represents a previous incarnation of power for the Democrats, and putting her in such a visible and important position would be an interesting move.

Again, I don't necessarily have a problem with his doing this, but it certainly raises some questions about whether he's going in a truly new direction, or whether he's just taking a different take on the Clinton years.

That may be, but perhaps this is really the manifestation of Obama's belief in the old phrase "keep your friends close and your enemies closer"?

Imagine -- if Hillary was to remain in the Senate, would she likely be an ally? Or would she likely be constantly demanding concessions, making herself an obstacle to Obama administration policy? I'm definitely cynical enough to believe that she wants the Obama administration to be a single term administration. By offering her this position, he's put her in a position to either remain in the Senate, basically being outted in her opposition, or to serve as the Secretary of State as a tool to implement Obama's policy.

This inclusion of her seems to at least potentially unite the two camps (for now). It's good strategy.

I also think with this move and these hires that now, some major obstacles to "change" could potentially be removed if he can just get these new executive appointments to march in lock-step with his administration.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by Kevin

That may be, but perhaps this is really the manifestation of Obama's belief in the old phrase "keep your friends close and your enemies closer"?

Imagine -- if Hillary was to remain in the Senate, would she likely be an ally? Or would she likely be constantly demanding concessions, making herself an obstacle to Obama administration policy? I'm definitely cynical enough to believe that she wants the Obama administration to be a single term administration. By offering her this position, he's put her in a position to either remain in the Senate, basically being outted in her opposition, or to serve as the Secretary of State as a tool to implement Obama's policy.

This inclusion of her seems to at least potentially unite the two camps (for now). It's good strategy.

I also think with this move and these hires that now, some major obstacles to "change" could potentially be removed if he can just get these new executive appointments to march in lock-step with his administration.

True - and as someone in my office noted, if he wants people who are experienced and can handle working White House politics, he's essentially limited to Clinton people (as the Carter people are probably mostly retired at this point).

[LttleMsPrEp]

Originally Posted by Kevin

That may be, but perhaps this is really the manifestation of Obama's belief in the old phrase "keep your friends close and your enemies closer"?

Imagine -- if Hillary was to remain in the Senate, would she likely be an ally? Or would she likely be constantly demanding concessions, making herself an obstacle to Obama administration policy? I'm definitely cynical enough to believe that she wants the Obama administration to be a single term administration. By offering her this position, he's put her in a position to either remain in the Senate, basically being outted in her opposition, or to serve as the Secretary of State as a tool to implement Obama's policy.

This inclusion of her seems to at least potentially unite the two camps (for now). It's good strategy.

I also think with this move and these hires that now, some major obstacles to "change" could potentially be removed if he can just get these new executive appointments to march in lock-step with his administration.

That's a really good point. I actually don't have a problem with Obama appointing Clinton and previous Clinton staffers to his administration. However, I would be a bit more at ease if more "newbies" were considered for his administration. Like most of you I think the Clinton era is a bit overrated so I don't see the need to try and mimic it.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Kevin

That may be, but perhaps this is really the manifestation of Obama's belief in the old phrase "keep your friends close and your enemies closer"?

Imagine -- if Hillary was to remain in the Senate, would she likely be an ally? Or would she likely be constantly demanding concessions, making herself an obstacle to Obama administration policy? I'm definitely cynical enough to believe that she wants the Obama administration to be a single term administration. By offering her this position, he's put her in a position to either remain in the Senate, basically being outted in her opposition, or to serve as the Secretary of State as a tool to implement Obama's policy.

This inclusion of her seems to at least potentially unite the two camps (for now). It's good strategy.

I also think with this move and these hires that now, some major obstacles to "change" could potentially be removed if he can just get these new executive appointments to march in lock-step with his administration.

I'm not 100% in agreement with your exact mechanism here, but I agree with the conclusion and I've 100% come around on HRC as Secretary of State - I think it's a masterstroke. Dude's a politician, and a sick one at that.

[nittanyalum]

Stocks rally on report Geithner will head Treasury

And I'm so happy Richardson's on board as Commerce Sec!

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by nittanyalum

Stocks rally on report Geithner will head Treasury

And I'm so happy Richardson's on board as Commerce Sec!

He candy-assed out on Summers